linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 APM: delete Linux kernel APM support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1103260021410.28928@x980>
Date:	Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:35:51 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 APM: delete Linux kernel APM support

> >  > > Beyond the lack of a upstream-visible feature-removal-schedule entry, we 
> >  > > still have an Arcnet driver which hardware was obsoleted by Ethernet in the 
> >  > > late 80s, and we still have i486 support and those are *much* older than 
> >  > > APM.

> > So how does your reasoning not apply to those drivers? There's several which 
> > are older than APM support.

If we follow-through with the proposed cpuidle changes,
then we'll have to cut APM code.   The problem isn't cutting
the code, it is testing it.  I do have a couple of 15-year old
laptops which include APM support.  However, with ACPI disabled
to enable APM, they don't even boot the upstream kernel today.

> > We had this really big battle about x86/Voyager two years ago, which x86 
> > subarchitecture literally had just a single user left, and the code was more 
> > intrusive than APM. Even there after much flaming the eventual consensus was 
> > that we'd accept it back if it was done cleanly, as part of the new-style 
> > x86_platform code.
> > 
> > Given that APM fits into the current PM frameworks there's no such problem here 
> > that i can see.

Somebody was pushing for Voyager support in the kernel
and was energetic about maintaining it.

cheers,
-Len

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/